Kamu Harcamaları, Ekonomik Büyüme ve Gelir Eşitsizliği: Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğundan Ampirik Kanıtlar

Abstract

Bu çalışma kamu harcamaları, ekonomik büyüme ve gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu (BDT) olarak adlandırılan geçiş ekonomileri için incelemektedir. 1998-2019 döneminin analiz edildiği çalışmada, kamu harcamalarının ekonomik büyüme ve gelir eşitsizliği üzerindeki etkileri bootstrap panel nedensellik testi ile belirlenmiştir. Bootstrap panel nedensellik testi sonuçları, Ermenistan, Belarus ve Kazakistan için kamu harcamalarından ekonomik büyümeye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Öte yandan Belarus ve Kazakistan’da kamu harcamalarından gelir eşitsizliğine, Kırgızistan’da ise gelir eşitsizliğinden kamu harcamalarına doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Moldova ve Rusya’da ise değişkenler arasında nedensellik ilişkisi elde edilememiştir. Panel nedensellik testlerinden elde edilen bulgular genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, BDT üyesi ülkelerde kamu harcamalarının hem ekonomik büyüme hem de gelir eşitsizliği ile yakın ilişkili olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Geçiş döneminde piyasa sisteminin tam olarak oturması için BDT üyesi ülkeler, devlet müdahalelerine ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Ancak geçiş sürecindeki bu ülkelerde kamu harcama politikalarının uygulanması sırasında özel yatırımları dışlamayan ve piyasa ekonomisinin işleyişine zarar vermeyen politikaların uygulanmasına özen gösterilmelidir.

Keywords

• Kamu harcamaları
• ekonomik büyüme
• gelir eşitsizliği
• maliye politikası
• panel nedensellik analizi

Public Expenditures, Economic Growth and Income Inequality: Empirical Evidence from the Commonwealth of Independent States

Abstract

This study has examined the causality relationship between public expenditures, economic growth and income inequality for transition economies called the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In the study, in which the 1998-2019 period was analyzed, the effects of public expenditures on economic growth and income inequality were determined with the bootstrap panel causality test. Bootstrap panel causality test results show that there is a one-way causality relationship from public expenditures to economic growth for Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. On the other hand, a one-way causality relationship has been determined from public expenditures to income inequality in Belarus and Kazakhstan, and from income inequality to public expenditures in Kyrgyzstan. In Moldova and Russia, however, no causal relationship could be obtained between the variables. The overall evaluation of the findings obtained from the panel causality tests concluded that public expenditures in CIS member countries are closely related to both economic growth and income inequality. CIS member countries need state interventions in order for the market system to fully settle in transition period. However, implementing policies that do not exclude private investments and do not harm the functioning of the market economy should be elaborated during practicing public expenditure policies in these countries in transition.

Keywords

• Public expenditures
• economic growth
• income inequality
• fiscal policy
• panel causality analysis

References

1. Abdieva, R., Baigonushova, D., & Ganiev, J. (2017). Relationship between government expenditure and economic growth in transition Countries: Case of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Bilig, (83), 241–258.
2. Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L., & Tanzi, V. (2008). Income distribution determinants and public spending efficiency. European Central Bank Working Paper Series, No:861.
3. Ağayev, S. (2012). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: eski Sovyetler birliği ülkelerinde Wagner yasası analizi (1995-2009). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 7–27.
4. Ağcakaya, S. (2009). Geçiş ekonomilerinden Orta Asya Türk Cumhuriyetleri’nde bütçe yönetimi ve mali disiplin sorunu. Akademik Bakış, 16.
5. Ahsan, S. M., Kwan, A. C., & Sahni, B. S. (1996). Cointegration and Wagner’s hypothesis: time series evidence for Canada. Applied Economics, 28(8), 1055–1058.
6. Alam, S., Sultana, A., & Butt, M. S. (2010). Does social expenditures promote economic growth? A multivariate panel cointegration analysis for Asian countries. European Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 44–54.
7. Alexiou, C. (2009). Government spending and economic growth: Econometric evidence from the South Eastern Europe (SEE). Journal of Economic and Social Research, 11(1), 1–16.
8. Al-Faris, A. F. (2002). Public expenditure and economic growth in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Applied Economics, 34(9), 1187–1193.

9. Anderson, E., Jalles D’Orey, M. A., Duvendack, M., & Esposito, L. (2017). Does government spending affect
10. income inequality? A meta‐regression analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(4), 961–987.
11. Barro, R. J. (1990). Government spending in a simple model of endogeneous growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S103–S125.
12. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407–443.
13. Bastagli, F., Coady, D., & Gupta, S. (2012). Income Inequality and Fiscal Policy, IMF Staff Discussion Note, SDN/12/08.
14. Betley, M. (2004). Public Expenditure in the CIS-7 Countries. In Clinton and Sarosh (Eds.), The low income counties of the Commonwealth of Independent States (pp.109–140). Washington: The International Monetary Fund.
15. Bleaney, M., Gemmell, N., & Kneller, R. (2001). Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 34(1), 36–57.
16. Boustan, L., Ferreira, F., Winkler, H., & Zolt, E. M. (2013). The effect of rising income inequality on taxation and public expenditures: Evidence from US municipalities and school districts, 1970–2000. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1291–1302.
17. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253.
18. Chang, J. J., Guo, J. T., & Wang, W. N. (2021). On Government Spending and Income Inequality under Monopolistic Competition (No. 202103), Retrieved from https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/202103.pdf
19. Christie, T. (2014). The effect of government spending on economic growth: Testing the non‐linear hypothesis. Bulletin of Economic Research, 66(2), 183–204.
20. Clements, B., Mooij, R.D., Francese, M., Gupta, S., & Keen, M. (2015). Fiscal policy and income inequality, In Clements, B., Mooij, R.D., Gupta, S., & Keen, M. (Eds), Inequality and Fiscal Policy (pp.3–19). Washington: International Monetary Fund.
21. Çevik, S. (2010). Geçiş ekonomilerinde kamu maliyesi ve mali sistem reformları. Avrasya Etüdleri, 37(1), 5–28.
22. Demiryürek Ürper, T. (2018). Kamu harcamalarının gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye örneği (Master dissertation). Retrieved from: http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/ handle/11655/5111/Tez%20H%C3%9C.pdf?sequence=1
23. Devlin, N., & Hansen, P. (2001). Health care spending and economic output: Granger causality. Applied Economics Letters, 8(8), 561–564.
24. Dincă, M. S., & Dincă, G. (2013). The impact of government expenditures upon economic growth in post- communist countries. Scientific Annals of the „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi Economic Sciences, 60(1), 83–92.
25. Doumbia, D., & Kinda, M. T. (2019). Reallocating public spending to reduce income inequality: Can it work?. IMF Working Paper, WP/19/188.
26. Esen, Ö., & Bayrak, M. (2015). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Geçiş sürecindeki Türk Cumhuriyetleri üzerine bir uygulama. Bilig, 73, 231–248.
27. Falkingham, J. (2004). Inequality and poverty in the CIS-7 countries 1989–2002. In Clinton and Sarosh (Eds.), The low income counties of the Commonwealth of Independent States (pp.141–170). Washington: The International Monetary Fund.
28. Gnangoin, Y. T. B., Du, L., Assamoi, G., Edjoukou, A. J., & Kassi, D. F. (2019). Public spending, income inequality and economic growth in Asian countries: A panel GMM approach. Economies, 7(4), 115.
29. Goodspeed, T. J. (2000). Education Spending, Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from US States. Retrieved from http://econ.hunter.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/education.pdf
30. Gray, C. (2007). Fiscal policy and economic growth in Europe and Central Asia: an overview. In Gray, Lane and Varoudakis (Eds), Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: Lessons for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (pp. 1–19). Washington: The World Bank.
31. Gurgul, H., Lach, Ł., & Mestel, R. (2012). The relationship between budgetary expenditure and economic growth in Poland. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 20(1), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100- 010-0186-z
32. Güzel, S., & Çetin, İ. (2018). Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika Ülkelerinde ekonomik büyümenin ve gelir eşitsizliğinin yoksulluğa olan etkisi. SGD-Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 8(2), 91–107.
33. Holmes, J. M., & Hutton, P. A. (1990). On the casual relationship between government expenditures and national income. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87–95.
34. Holzner, M. (2011). Inequality, growth and public spending in Central, East and Southeast Europe. Ecineq Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, Working Paper Series, WP 2011 – 221.
35. Hsieh, E., & Lai, K. S. (1994). Government spending and economic growth: The G-7 experience. Applied Economics, 26(5), 535–542.
36. Iyare, S. O., & Lorde, T. (2004). Co-integration, causality and Wagner’s law: Tests for selected Caribbean countries. Applied Economics Letters, 11(13), 815-825.
37. Karim, M. R. (2015). Public education spending and income inequality in Bangladesh. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 5(1), 75.
38. Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978–992.
39. Kumar, S., Webber, D. J., & Fargher, S. (2012). Wagner’s Law revisited: cointegration and causality tests for New Zealand. Applied Economics, 44(5), 607–616.
40. Kutasi, G., & Marton, Á. (2020). The long-term impact of public expenditures on GDP-growth. Society and Economy, 42(4), 403–419.
41. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.
42. Kyriacou, A. P., Muinelo-Gallo, L., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2016). On the redistributive efficiency of fiscal policy, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 69045
43. Lucas Jr, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42. Magazzino, C. (2012). Wagner versus Keynes: Public spending and national income in Italy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(6), 890–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2012.05.012
44. Nasibova, G. (2013). Post Sosyalist Ülkelerde Maliye Politikasının Gelir Dağılımına Etkisi-Azerbaycan Örneği (Master dissertation). Retrieved from: https://dspace.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12575/31122/ gulaynas%C4%B1bova.pdf?sequence=1.
45. Ospina, M. (2010). The effect of social spending on income inequality: An analysis for Latin American countries. Center for Research in Economics and Finance (CIEF), Working Papers, (10–03).
46. Parui, P. (2021). Government expenditure and economic growth: a post-Keynesian analysis. International Review of Applied Economics, 35(3–4), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2020.1837744
47. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.
48. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127.
49. Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435. Cambridge
50. Popescu, C. C., & Diaconu, L. (2021). Government Spending and Economic Growth: A Cointegration Analysis on Romania. Sustainability, 13(12), 6575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126575
51. Rehman, J., Iqbal, A., & Siddiqi, M. W. (2010). Cointegration-causality analysis between public expenditures and economic growth in Pakistan. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 556–565.
52. Roine, J., Vlachos, J., & Waldenström, D. (2009). The long-run determinants of inequality: What can we learn from top income data?. Journal of Public Economics, 93(7–8), 974–988.
53. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.
54. Samanta, T. & Kayet, A. (2020). Public education expenditure and inequality nexus: A critical view in Indian context. American Journal of Economics, 10(6), 449–458.
55. Samudram, M., Nair, M., & Vaithilingam, S. (2009). Keynes and Wagner on government expenditures and economic development: the case of a developing economy. Empirical Economics, 36(3), 697–712. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00181-008-0214-1
56. Simai, M. (2006). Poverty and Inequality in Eastern Europe and the CIS Transition Economies, United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Working Papers 17.
57. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.
58. Srinivasan, P.(2013). Causality between public expenditure and economic growth: The Indian case. International Journal of Economics and Management, 7(2), 335–347.
59. Teyyare, E., & Sayaner, K. (2018). Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliğinin maliye politikası araçları ve kurumsal faktörler açısından analizi ve çözüm önerileri. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16), 309–334.
60. Ulu, M. I. (2018). The effect of government social spending on income inequality in OECD: A panel data analysis. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(3), 184–202.
61. Wagner, A. (1883). Three Extracts on Public Finance, translated and reprinted in R.A. Musgrave and A.T. Peacock (eds), Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, London: Macmillan, 1958.
62. Woo, J., Bova, M. E., Kinda, M. T., & Zhang, M. Y. S. (2013). Distributional consequences of fiscal consolidation and the role of fiscal policy: What do the data say?. IMF Working Paper, WP/13/195.
63. Wu, S. Y., Tang, J. H., & Lin, E. S. (2010). The impact of government expenditure on economic growth: How sensitive to the level of development?. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(6), 804–817.
64. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368.